L'Enfant

[Gold Trumpet]

I mean, a cinema that is not completely genre rigid or event/hype bajillion dollars + book/videogame tie-in? Will there be any truly GREAT filmmakers left?

If by genre rigid, you mean films that are only obsessed with the history of genre, then my exact worry highlighted there. I don't care about the commercial aspects of 300 looking like art to the mainstream, but too many filmmakers only focus on the mixing and matching of different genres. Future filmmakers find acceptance because filmmakers from the past have gotten acceptance for it. Even though SoNowThen may disagree with this list, but no films or filmmakers bore me more than The Coen Brothers, Wes Anderson, Quentin Tarantino, Sam Raimi, The Conformist, Kitano's Fireworks, or whoever carries a style critics or scholars excuse by reminding everyone of Godard's importance.

I don't think they are godardian in any sense. I just believe they are the results of Godard's influence. He made the mixing and matching of genres within a film normal. He had purposes in doing this, but these filmmakers have no real reason. There is no higher critical thought. They play with genres like it has become the norm to do so. I believe it has but critics still find too much geeky love of it.

The Dardennes will become rare filmmakers. It isn't trendy to be going after serious subjects. Even Lars Von Trier who has some obsession with serious subjects can't make a film like Breaking the Waves without ending it on a cheeky Disney ending that asks no serious questions.

My opinion usually goes as the contrarian of the board, but I really do have higher beliefs and opinions that guide me. I just wonder if anyone else worries about these things.



BTW, congrats on getting married.

[Alexandro]

I've been thinking long and hard about all this for a while now. I understand that the cinematic language, the approach, has to evolve, and recycling or mixing genres is no longer an option to give a step ahead. I understand also So Now Then's complaint on the absurd industrialization of cinema that's been going on in the last thirty years. It is true that in a few years, films like L'Enfant will be even more rare than now, everything indicates now. But "rare" where, exactly? This only applies to the mainstream.

Let's not forget that at the same time that mainstream cinema and what we know still call "independent" cinema (even though is half funded and possible because of the studio system) is being increasingly dumbed down, the tools for filmmaking are becoming more and more democratic. Everyone can make a movie now. Of course, not everyone will make good, interesting movies, but the room for experimentation, for those who are willing to follow it, are more open now than ever before. We just can't expect this to be playing on any multiplexes. Distribution means and forums for different things will change. I don't know exactly how or where this will take us (will it become ultra elitist, will it be available for everyone even though very few people will be interested in it?), but what I do know is that anyone with the will to make films like L'Enfant, or Inland Empire, or L'Eclisse, or any other new fucked up thing we haven't even thought about, will be able to do it. Just now like right now. Maybe not make a living out of it, but making a living is also changing now. Every day that passes more and more people decide they need free time to do shit they wanna do instead of just spend their lifetime working in some office. So maybe people will take two months off from some job and make a small movie, and fast. Because this process of taking three years of your life to make one movie is frankly absurd. It should be the other way around. How is it possible that fifty years ago directors were able to make two movies a year (and we have Bergman dying with a body of work of 60 films, impossible to conceive today), and right now every fucking little stupid movie is such a monumental enterprise. Does this makes any fucking sense at all? Filmmakers today should be way more prolific is that's what they wanted.

And maybe they will be thousands of "small" filmmakers that will be making interesting stuff, and people will be able to see it if they want to. Of course, legends, big important artists will be harder to find, but the point of filmmaking is filmmaking, not recognition, awards, money, or even having your work seen by a bunch of strangers. I guess what I'm saying is that complete filmmakers, who go a step ahead or at least try to, is something that depends on each one of us or any other individual with filmmaking aspirations.

On the other hand, genre doesn't have to be a bad word. Humans have been telling stories for thousands of years and movies are just another way of telling those stories. It shouldn't be the only thing, but it certainly shouldn't disappear or made seem like a lesser effort just for belonging in there. The beauty of cinema lies in it's eclectic nature.

[SoNowThen]

Democratization of tools has no bearing on exhibition, which, say what you will about the internet, is getting thinner and thinner and more rule-rigid by the minute.

The Dardennes (thank God) have teaching positions that keep them fed, clothed, and sheltered, and spent the entirety of their youth on nearly unseen documentaries (so, I guess, even though their cinematic masterpieces are of this age, there could be an argument made for them being filmmakers from an earlier generation when cinematic appreciation was different... at least in the mass media's eye).

A movie shot on film, projected on film, in a limited run, to a captive audience of hundreds in a dark and SILENT (except for the film's audio) theatre will be a thing of the past. Hence, the cinematic art of filmmaking will have ceased to exist.

Is there jazz being performed today? Yes. Are there forums for jazz? Yes. Are there ever-increasingly skilled performers? Yes. Is jazz in any way progressing, or is it an exciting (and seized) way of creating art? Even as a player this would be hard to answer yes, and as for a composer and bandleader (unless one is into highlighting past trends) I think the answer would have to be no.

I'm sure there are massive holes with my jazz analogy, but I think it paints a suitable picture. I would like to think of myself as a person who needs to create, but making totally independent cell-phone videos and posting them on youtube for 86 random people to see constitutes about the same artistic achievement as a 14 year old girl keeping a diary of her summer camp activities.

This article: http://www.sensesofcinema.com/contents/07/43/last-days-film.html
and Paul Schrader's recent attempt at a "film canon" kinda scared the shit outta me by exposing a hidden fear I have deep down within me. Once other masters like Hsien and Sukorov die (and the latter I'm not even convinced is at the highest level of the others), along with the Dardennes, who will be the supported artistic giants of cinema? Now, I love PTA and Wes A as much as the next guy, but they are unfortunately a part of the beast, which may not limit them economically, but will certainly limit them in terms of just how far they can push it... in this day and age, anyway. And perhaps, being in such close proximity to Hollywood maybe they have no desire to push the art form in that way.

I guess what I am saying is that those that are in now are in, but the door to filmmaking is being firmly shut, barred, and the earth razed behind it. I hope not, but fuck...

[A Matter Of Chance]

I mean, a cinema that is not completely genre rigid or event/hype bajillion dollars + book/videogame tie-in? Will there be any truly GREAT filmmakers left?

If by genre rigid, you mean films that are only obsessed with the history of genre, then my exact worry highlighted there. I don't care about the commercial aspects of 300 looking like art to the mainstream, but too many filmmakers only focus on the mixing and matching of different genres. Future filmmakers find acceptance because filmmakers from the past have gotten acceptance for it. Even though SoNowThen may disagree with this list, but no films or filmmakers bore me more than The Coen Brothers, Wes Anderson, Quentin Tarantino, Sam Raimi, The Conformist, Kitano's Fireworks, or whoever carries a style critics or scholars excuse by reminding everyone of Godard's importance.

I don't think they are godardian in any sense. I just believe they are the results of Godard's influence. He made the mixing and matching of genres within a film normal. He had purposes in doing this, but these filmmakers have no real reason. There is no higher critical thought. They play with genres like it has become the norm to do so. I believe it has but critics still find too much geeky love of it.

The Dardennes will become rare filmmakers. It isn't trendy to be going after serious subjects. Even Lars Von Trier who has some obsession with serious subjects can't make a film like Breaking the Waves without ending it on a cheeky Disney ending that asks no serious questions.

I wouldn't argue any of those counts except The Conformist. I think it's an important film that does much more than play with genre. While it does owe a debt to Godard, I think it manages to do alot of different things. For example, Bertolucci tackles the subject of Italian fascism through the genre, which to me seems almost reminiscent of melodrama. The film also manages to delve deeper by incorporating philosophical ideas relating to Plato's allegory of the cave.

In any case I like this film and I'm curious as to why you think it's only interested in genre, because to me it isn't.

[Alexandro]

Democratization of tools has no bearing on exhibition, which, say what you will about the internet, is getting thinner and thinner and more rule-rigid by the minute...

... I would like to think of myself as a person who needs to create, but making totally independent cell-phone videos and posting them on youtube for 86 random people to see constitutes about the same artistic achievement as a 14 year old girl keeping a diary of her summer camp activities.

I wasn't talking about making independent cell-phone videos and posting them on youtube...wich is already happening. I'm talking about making a real movie with real artistic intention and merits...and not necesarily on the internet. And we're also being overly pessimistic here. Things in mainstream media can simply change. Art always wins.

[pete]

Art always wins.

[Gold Trumpet]

I mean, a cinema that is not completely genre rigid or event/hype bajillion dollars + book/videogame tie-in? Will there be any truly GREAT filmmakers left?

If by genre rigid, you mean films that are only obsessed with the history of genre, then my exact worry highlighted there. I don't care about the commercial aspects of 300 looking like art to the mainstream, but too many filmmakers only focus on the mixing and matching of different genres. Future filmmakers find acceptance because filmmakers from the past have gotten acceptance for it. Even though SoNowThen may disagree with this list, but no films or filmmakers bore me more than The Coen Brothers, Wes Anderson, Quentin Tarantino, Sam Raimi, The Conformist, Kitano's Fireworks, or whoever carries a style critics or scholars excuse by reminding everyone of Godard's importance.

I don't think they are godardian in any sense. I just believe they are the results of Godard's influence. He made the mixing and matching of genres within a film normal. He had purposes in doing this, but these filmmakers have no real reason. There is no higher critical thought. They play with genres like it has become the norm to do so. I believe it has but critics still find too much geeky love of it.

The Dardennes will become rare filmmakers. It isn't trendy to be going after serious subjects. Even Lars Von Trier who has some obsession with serious subjects can't make a film like Breaking the Waves without ending it on a cheeky Disney ending that asks no serious questions.

I wouldn't argue any of those counts except The Conformist. I think it's an important film that does much more than play with genre. While it does owe a debt to Godard, I think it manages to do alot of different things. For example, Bertolucci tackles the subject of Italian fascism through the genre, which to me seems almost reminiscent of melodrama. The film also manages to delve deeper by incorporating philosophical ideas relating to Plato's allegory of the cave.

In any case I like this film and I'm curious as to why you think it's only interested in genre, because to me it isn't.

Maybe the Conformist isn't just a play on genre, but it is a fascination with genre. Take a look at the film with all the tone changes and cinematic style references and then look at the themes and the characters. Does the former really lift the latter at all? I don't think so.

The film is dominated by perfect composition shots that I didn't see the themes or story. All I saw was Bertolucci's hand with shifting the look and making every scene annoyingly gorgeous. Sam Mendes has little taste these days to allow the story to start and the filmmaking to come second. Bertolucci made style shifts, tone changes and camera angles that seem to have little to do with the film except embellishing the time period.



As for the other argument, I'll make my own general statement.

The ability for anyone to make independent films at little cost is making film less about theories and ideas and more about directness. The young filmmaker who wants to just emulate his favorite filmmakers can do so and these days has a better chance to make it in the film industry because of it.

Even if he goes to film school he will have little pressure to understand historical theories. The school will focus on the technical while making every student only take a few classes about the theories and ideas about film. They won't have to be fully integrated in this education because their graduation will mainly depend on their short films.

Thing is, most people don't want to understand those theories anyways. Scholars have made sure to make film a deft art with a lot to learn that it is becoming more the art of specialists instead of amateur fans and enthusiasts. Learning about the art of film isn't just reading the newest books about film like it was in the 60s. It's reading a whole array of books that develop ideas and theories and multiplies them into numerous different disciplines and concentrations. In literature you have to be a specialist. You can't read every great book. There isn't enough time to do so. In film you can watch every great film, but now you can't read every idea about all those films.

But film isn't unique with this problem. In the late 50s jazz developed technically to be so complex that it went from being the trendiest thing at a college like Harvard to something only for specialists. Students at Harvard grew to love folk music because it was simple and its pleasure was immediate. The history of music since then has been that music has developed the means so anyone can play it and succeed at it. Most indie bands these days aren't challenging anything. I'm always shocked that the White Stripes are so praised but yet I can re-produce Meg White's drumming with relative ease and I have almost no experience in drumming. The garage band mentality rules.

The idea is to keep it from ruling in film. Film needs to have film artists who are professionals and have a serious mentality toward their subjects. To me, Wes Anderson is at best good candy. He just makes light and entertaining movies, but because he has style to boot, people put him up on a higher level. He doesn't deserve the praise. It's a lot easier for an up and coming filmmaker to emulate Wes Anderson than it is for them to emulate Michelangelo Antonioni. Nobody wants to take on the largeness of his ideas. They want to make films that seem like they curb the mainstream but really have the immediate pleasures of Hollywood.

I have a feeling I'll continue to be more and more the contrarian all the time with how far things are dwindling. Movies will always be mass entertainment, but serious film may become a regulated art form like painting, poetry and serious theater.

[A Matter Of Chance]

I agree wholeheartedly with your statement, GT. To me it seems right on target. But I still think the Conformist's fascination with genre is really more of an exploitation of genre. Bertolucci is able to take this genre - tone and style changes, which the audience sees as benign, and infuse them with much more sinister ideas. I know it's not a perfect film, but I think it has value.

[children with angels]

On the other hand, genre doesn't have to be a bad word. Humans have been telling stories for thousands of years and movies are just another way of telling those stories. It shouldn't be the only thing, but it certainly shouldn't disappear or made seem like a lesser effort just for belonging in there. The beauty of cinema lies in it's eclectic nature.

This I agree with. I don't agree with the disdain for genre I'm seeing here. I definitely used to be farmore wary of genre than I am now, and used to align it with the derogatory meaning of the term 'generic' (though in and of itself this word shouldn't be value-laden at all), i.e.: blind repetition and lack of artistic impulse. But the more films I see, and the more I read about cinema, the more I have come to respect genre.

As Alexandro says, genre links us to history, and to archetypal forms of storytelling that have for thousands of years been involved in the process of helping people to understand the world they live in and how to live their lives. There is much more profundity to be found in genre than a lot of people seem to be suggesting. The lonesome wanderer of the western, or the monster of the horror movie, can often be far more likely to set my mind racing to the "serious subjects" of philosophy, politics or psychology than another Art Film in which a protagonist deals yet again with the false carrot of the 'meaning of life'. (I'm of course not saying that there aren't Art Films that do get me to think like this).

What it often comes down to is a question of big ideas being contained effortlessly in modest forms rather than being struggled towards in sometimes overly-blatant, ungainly forms. It can be the difference between suggesting something and saying it out loud and thus killing its magic. I would take, for example, Vertigo's treatment of notions of identity and desire over Persona's: though I admire Persona in many ways, for me it is not able to be as subtle, affecting and rewarding as Vertigo due in great part to the reverberations Vertigo has going for it by being part of the romance and mystery genres, with everything they grew from.

I also think that genre mixing can be very productive and interesting (even though I also agree that it of course can be done in uninspired ways too). One way a film can attempt to make itself like life is by trying to abandon genre all together: this might work (though it's pretty hard not to touch on any genre at all), but it can just as easily form the one-note experience that many feel they find in genre films.

I think another interesting way a film can become like life (though not necessarily narrowly 'realistic') is by mixing genres. This is because virtually anything that happens to us in life can be expected to be found, in some exagerated or toned-down form, in a genre world. The only difference is that we don't live in one genre world all the time like the characters in a straight-genre film do, but instead pass between them: one minute our life can seem like a romantic comedy, the next a disaster film, the next a social-realist drama, the next a porn film, the next a tragic melodrama. I think that this is just one of the feats that mixing genres can achieve: making the experience of watching a film as uncertain and dangerous as life because, in both, the genre rules are always changing.

[Alexandro]

I mean, a cinema that is not completely genre rigid or event/hype bajillion dollars + book/videogame tie-in? Will there be any truly GREAT filmmakers left?

If by genre rigid, you mean films that are only obsessed with the history of genre, then my exact worry highlighted there. I don't care about the commercial aspects of 300 looking like art to the mainstream, but too many filmmakers only focus on the mixing and matching of different genres. Future filmmakers find acceptance because filmmakers from the past have gotten acceptance for it. Even though SoNowThen may disagree with this list, but no films or filmmakers bore me more than The Coen Brothers, Wes Anderson, Quentin Tarantino, Sam Raimi, The Conformist, Kitano's Fireworks, or whoever carries a style critics or scholars excuse by reminding everyone of Godard's importance.

I don't think they are godardian in any sense. I just believe they are the results of Godard's influence. He made the mixing and matching of genres within a film normal. He had purposes in doing this, but these filmmakers have no real reason. There is no higher critical thought. They play with genres like it has become the norm to do so. I believe it has but critics still find too much geeky love of it.

The Dardennes will become rare filmmakers. It isn't trendy to be going after serious subjects. Even Lars Von Trier who has some obsession with serious subjects can't make a film like Breaking the Waves without ending it on a cheeky Disney ending that asks no serious questions.

I wouldn't argue any of those counts except The Conformist. I think it's an important film that does much more than play with genre. While it does owe a debt to Godard, I think it manages to do alot of different things. For example, Bertolucci tackles the subject of Italian fascism through the genre, which to me seems almost reminiscent of melodrama. The film also manages to delve deeper by incorporating philosophical ideas relating to Plato's allegory of the cave.

In any case I like this film and I'm curious as to why you think it's only interested in genre, because to me it isn't.

Maybe the Conformist isn't just a play on genre, but it is a fascination with genre. Take a look at the film with all the tone changes and cinematic style references and then look at the themes and the characters. Does the former really lift the latter at all? I don't think so.

The film is dominated by perfect composition shots that I didn't see the themes or story. All I saw was Bertolucci's hand with shifting the look and making every scene annoyingly gorgeous. Sam Mendes has little taste these days to allow the story to start and the filmmaking to come second. Bertolucci made style shifts, tone changes and camera angles that seem to have little to do with the film except embellishing the time period.



As for the other argument, I'll make my own general statement.

The ability for anyone to make independent films at little cost is making film less about theories and ideas and more about directness. The young filmmaker who wants to just emulate his favorite filmmakers can do so and these days has a better chance to make it in the film industry because of it.

Even if he goes to film school he will have little pressure to understand historical theories. The school will focus on the technical while making every student only take a few classes about the theories and ideas about film. They won't have to be fully integrated in this education because their graduation will mainly depend on their short films.

Thing is, most people don't want to understand those theories anyways. Scholars have made sure to make film a deft art with a lot to learn that it is becoming more the art of specialists instead of amateur fans and enthusiasts. Learning about the art of film isn't just reading the newest books about film like it was in the 60s. It's reading a whole array of books that develop ideas and theories and multiplies them into numerous different disciplines and concentrations. In literature you have to be a specialist. You can't read every great book. There isn't enough time to do so. In film you can watch every great film, but now you can't read every idea about all those films.

But film isn't unique with this problem. In the late 50s jazz developed technically to be so complex that it went from being the trendiest thing at a college like Harvard to something only for specialists. Students at Harvard grew to love folk music because it was simple and its pleasure was immediate. The history of music since then has been that music has developed the means so anyone can play it and succeed at it. Most indie bands these days aren't challenging anything. I'm always shocked that the White Stripes are so praised but yet I can re-produce Meg White's drumming with relative ease and I have almost no experience in drumming. The garage band mentality rules.

The idea is to keep it from ruling in film. Film needs to have film artists who are professionals and have a serious mentality toward their subjects. To me, Wes Anderson is at best good candy. He just makes light and entertaining movies, but because he has style to boot, people put him up on a higher level. He doesn't deserve the praise. It's a lot easier for an up and coming filmmaker to emulate Wes Anderson than it is for them to emulate Michelangelo Antonioni. Nobody wants to take on the largeness of his ideas. They want to make films that seem like they curb the mainstream but really have the immediate pleasures of Hollywood.

I have a feeling I'll continue to be more and more the contrarian all the time with how far things are dwindling. Movies will always be mass entertainment, but serious film may become a regulated art form like painting, poetry and serious theater.

Still, despite the garage band mentality, there ARE interesting musicians making groundbreaking music, very few, but they're aroun, and a lot of them are fairly unknown. The same will happen to film. And that's perfectly fine with me. The person who's interested seriously in film will find out about the new shit that's going on even if it's not mentioned in specialized magazines, and will know Wes Anderson's place in the big scheme of things no matter how exagerated the praise, or will understand where that praise is coming from (which i don't find undeserving at all, no one is saying wes anderson is the new antonioni).

[Gold Trumpet]

As Alexandro says, genre links us to history, and to archetypal forms of storytelling that have for thousands of years been involved in the process of helping people to understand the world they live in and how to live their lives.

This is only true in the most basic terms. The truth is that the generic stories that existed many hundreds or thousands of years ago have little to do with the generic stories that exist today. The reason is that genre stories are subject to the cultural ramifications of the times that they were made in. They are folk stories to highlight the beliefs and norms of a society. As the Wild West story has significance to this age and country, it has absolutely none to the time period before. The same would be for gangster stories and numerous other genres. Even a serious melodrama of the 1600s would have little recognition in our times because it would be noted for promoting outdated ideas of life. The longevity of a genre is said to be good for only a few hundred years at best before it begins to lose its relevance.

Highlighting the structural or simple emotions that run through hundreds of years of genres barely describes the importance a generic story has to a certain culture or age. A film like Vertigo would have affiliation to an older genre, but its foundation would be only so old.

There is much more profundity to be found in genre than a lot of people seem to be suggesting. The lonesome wanderer of the western, or the monster of the horror movie, can often be far more likely to set my mind racing to the "serious subjects" of philosophy, politics or psychology than another Art Film in which a protagonist deals yet again with the false carrot of the 'meaning of life'. (I'm of course not saying that there aren't Art Films that do get me to think like this).

First off, the idea that every art film deals a false carrot to the meaning of life is too general to be descriptive. One fears you are lumping all art films into an idea they have norms and similarities. David Bordwell once wrote an essay that tried to dig into the norms of 60s art films to see if there was a recognizable pattern to all the films. He could only comment on the relationship between a few films instead of pose a larger argument. The reason is because there is no pattern. Art films are the very idea of multiplicity in structure and idea.

Second, the importance you give to genre here has nothing to do with art. It has everything to do with their cultural implications. They stand tall because they reflect the beliefs or norms of the everyday people. If the only way you can describe the meaning of a genre film is by tying it to that larger audience then you are describing a cultural phenomenon instead of an actual piece of art.

I would take, for example, Vertigo's treatment of notions of identity and desire over Persona's: though I admire Persona in many ways, for me it is not able to be as subtle, affecting and rewarding as Vertigo due in great part to the reverberations Vertigo has going for it by being part of the romance and mystery genres, with everything they grew from.

Because Vertigo and Persona have absolutely no relation in structure, tone or purpose and should NEVER be compared, I'm going to take your preference of Vertigo as a statement about your preferences in movies in general. Persona, a tough work that attacks the senses, could never be subtle, as you say Vertigo is. And when you say Vertigo is greater for "being part of the romance and mystery genres, with everything they grew from." you again announce that the cultural implications of Vertigo is what trumps Persona.

It would be more relevant to describe each film and the weight of their themes. It's hard to argue that the one or two themes going in Vertigo really compare to Persona at all. Not only does Persona have far more themes, it has ideas and are about characters who share personal experiences. Their experiences are relatable back to the audience because they are viable to happen. It is based in reality.

Vertigo is based on a contrived plot. The ending has as much to do about taking the audience on a suspense ride as it does about showing the them a personal revelation. Preferring Vertigo is just reinstating that people like entertainment vehicles over art films because the characters are easier to like and the ideas easier to be relatable to. It has nothing to do with successful art.

But, I've always had problems with the academic studies of Hitchcock anyways. More books are written about the cultural phenomenon of Alfred Hitchcock than about his supposed art. You can find books about the role of women and feminism in his films, about the taboos he challenged and other things that promote his significance to the American landscape. So what! John Wayne has as much meaning culturally and could have numerous books devoted about all the different kinds of heroes he played, but these books wouldn't show the few times he stepped outside the conventional and really acted.

I think another interesting way a film can become like life (though not necessarily narrowly 'realistic') is by mixing genres. This is because virtually anything that happens to us in life can be expected to be found, in some exagerated or toned-down form, in a genre world. The only difference is that we don't live in one genre world all the time like the characters in a straight-genre film do, but instead pass between them: one minute our life can seem like a romantic comedy, the next a disaster film, the next a social-realist drama, the next a porn film, the next a tragic melodrama. I think that this is just one of the feats that mixing genres can achieve: making the experience of watching a film as uncertain and dangerous as life because, in both, the genre rules are always changing.

But telling a personal story by adjusting genres is limiting. You can't emphasize different moods or feelings by just finding the appropriate genre. It only captures the surface of the experience at best. It also feels like it would be a simple game of ticktacktoe to match an experience with the appropriate genre instead. The element of creation would be gone.






For Alexandro ----

When I implied most bands into garage band mentality, I meant most bands. Not all.

Wes Anderson isn't considered the new Antonioni, but he is considered one of the premiere filmmakers America has to offer. If he is the pinnacle in which a new filmmaker is to aspire to then that's sad.

[w/o horse]

Some of what's being said sounds contradictory to me, especially in the area of technique vs. theory.  I understand that The Gold Trumpet is attempting to express how necessary value judgement is increasing the theory of film, and I understand that Alexandro's emphasis is on the potential for self-expression in any art, but what is being diluted is the relationship between the artist and his art.  I mean, is the artist attempting to say something about life through his art or is he attempting to speak about his art?  It's an important question, and if it were clarified in this argument it would help satisfy both parties because the art film is always going to be heavily influenced by the technical film and the technical film is always going to be influenced by the art film.  The question of genre is so time specific and dead-end I don't know.  The merits of all films obviously extend outside the preference of the filmmaker's identification.  This is a conversation about amplification.

I'm with Alexandro when he says that the exterior of the film world is fascinating and revelatory.  I'm with The Gold Trumpet when he says that the interior of the film world is probing and intense.  I disagree that one is more timeless than the other.  I'm thrilled that the medium is diverse enough to encompass both.

[Gold Trumpet]

I'm with Alexandro when he says that the exterior of the film world is fascinating and revelatory.  I'm with The Gold Trumpet when he says that the interior of the film world is probing and intense.  I disagree that one is more timeless than the other.  I'm thrilled that the medium is diverse enough to encompass both.

Yes, film should encompass both. Having different ideologies is much more important than having agreeing ones.

See, in the 50s and 60s, serious criticism meant you believed in an ideology. Critics took stands against certain trends and filmmakers that went against their beliefs. They also campaigned for films they loved. I feel criticism today is being null and void by a desire to accept everything. Roger Ebert can take a stand against a crap film, but he rarely takes a stand against a major art film. He finds good in everything as do most other critics.

My general standpoint comes from Mathew Arnold in which he professed that "art was the criticism of life". Other writers and filmmakers expanded that film terms. Parker Tyler professed it wasn't how you filmed something, but what you filmed that was important. He said that a film should be measured with the considerations that the film had personal, political, and historical ramifications among others.

Then Satyajit Ray said this:

"The exterior of a film is beginning to count for more than ever before. People don't seem to bother about what you say, so long as you say it in an unconventional manner. As if being modern for a filmmaker consisted solely in how he juggles with his visuals and not in his attitude to life as he expresses it through the film."

I do believe in the importance of filmmaking and structual innovation, but I believe it supports the story, themes and ideas within a film. I believe its importance is secondary compared to these things. Knowing that I have an approach and ideology when I look at film is liberating for me. It allows me to understand my purpose better as a critic and a lot better as a creative writer on the path to be a filmmaker. It's an ideology that doesn't promote dogma per say. It keeps my ideas open for creative exploration but more importantly it will always remind me what I don't want in a story or film.

[children with angels]

The truth is that the generic stories that existed many hundreds or thousands of years ago have little to do with the generic stories that exist today. The reason is that genre stories are subject to the cultural ramifications of the times that they were made in.

Of course I realise that the western or horror hasn't been around in the form it is now for thousands of years, but folk stories asking the same questions in similar forms, with similar figures, using similar myths have been: today's genres are a continuation of that tradition. It's precisely the tension between the cultural shifts that take place within these archetypal stories and the historically continuing myths themselves that make them fascinating.

First off, the idea that every art film deals a false carrot to the meaning of life is too general to be descriptive. One fears you are lumping all art films into an idea they have norms and similarities. David Bordwell once wrote an essay that tried to dig into the norms of 60s art films to see if there was a recognizable pattern to all the films. He could only comment on the relationship between a few films instead of pose a larger argument. The reason is because there is no pattern. Art films are the very idea of multiplicity in structure and idea.

I'm not saying that every Art Film is the same, I was just making the point that, whilst you say that "serious issues" or "serious themes" are only dealt with in Art Films, they can be found in many genre films as well. However, I would argue that it is true that, in just the same way as you can say many genre films are very similar, you can make the same argument for a number of Art Films, despite the obvious disparity of approaches. Bordwell did in fact make a number of salient observations about the underlying impulses of the style. There are clichés in both kinds of filmmaking, but I would say that the difference is that in a genre film the cliché often has the possibility of being a profound cliché because of its historical lineage, whereas in an Art Film the cliché can be just a cliché, and that is all. But, of course, I'm not insisting that all Art Films are clichéd: I like Begman, Fellini, Antonioni or Godard as much as the next cinephile. My point was to defend genre filmmaking, not to attack Art Film – all I wanted was an acknowledgment that the "seriousness" you crave can be found in genre too.

Second, the importance you give to genre here has nothing to do with art. It has everything to do with their cultural implications. They stand tall because they reflect the beliefs or norms of the everyday people. If the only way you can describe the meaning of a genre film is by tying it to that larger audience then you are describing a cultural phenomenon instead of an actual piece of art.

I gave up a long time ago on the distinction between art and other kinds of entertainment: it's a losing argument that's grounded in impulses of cultural elitism as far as I'm concerned. This isn't to say I've given up on evaluation at all, but rather for ease of discussion and for a level playing field I would call every type of film part of the same artform. A film can be a "cultural phenomenon" and a "piece of art" at the same time. Artists have always used genre to further their own artistic impulses, and it is the very restrictions of a form such as genre that can allow art to be successful, rather than being atypical and self-indulgent, which CAN come from attempting to abandon those forms entirely (though, quite obviously, not always).

Vertigo and Persona have absolutely no relation in structure, tone or purpose and should NEVER be compared

Why shouldn't they be compared – because one is "art" and the other "entertainment"? I think this is a false distinction. You're right about the differences in structure, tone, and purpose (this is what comes from one being a genre film and the other an Art Film: that's exactly why I chose them as examples) but my point was that they touch on comparable themes of the mutability of personal identity, sexual desire, obsession, sexual politics, and so on.

Persona, a tough work that attacks the senses, could never be subtle, as you say Vertigo is.

Subtly is just one of the features that I particularly admire and crave in a work of art; this is why I'm also not an Oliver Stone fan! But that's a whole different argument... Aesthetically, as opposed to just thematically, I find Vertigo more rewarding than Persona (its narrative, its characters, its uses of colour, its ellipses, its manipulation of point of view, its overall mood, and on and on), and much of this comes from its status as a classical Hollywood genre film – a mode that demanded subtlety and cohesion in its aesthetic.

And when you say Vertigo is greater for "being part of the romance and mystery genres, with everything they grew from." you again announce that the cultural implications of Vertigo is what trumps Persona.

"Cultural implications" should be an absolutely key factor in the assessment of any work of art, as I'm sure you'd agree. I think what you seem to be arguing, though, is that if genre carries such cultural meaning by itself then to praise that meaning in a film is not to be praising an artist who has put those meanings there, but rather an unthinking meaning-carrying structure. But the point is that artists can use and operate inside these structures for a purpose – this is part of their art: the meaning that comes with genre is part of the overall meaning of an artwork. The (subtle) personal inflections that they then bring to their uses of these meanings through their manipulation of this structure is then what characterises their artistic style.

Not only does Persona have far more themes, it has ideas and are about characters who share personal experiences. Their experiences are relatable back to the audience because they are viable to happen. It is based in reality.

I think it's very arguable whether Persona has "far more themes" than Vertigo, but even if it did, keeping a sort of tally in this way seems like a very crude way of judging artistic worth. Also, whether things in films are "viable to happen" is surely not a valid reason for a film having artistic merit: every work of art relates to and reflects "reality". The events in Vertigo are obviously unlikely in a "realist" sense, but surely we're not saying that a work of art has to be realist to good?

Vertigo is based on a contrived plot.

It is based on an intelligently exaggerated, very imaginative, and rather unique version on the mystery and romance plot: contrived would suggest that it has been seen many times before (which, even if it had been, would not in itself be reason enough to reject it: it's the way in which it's handled that is important).

Preferring Vertigo is just reinstating that people like entertainment vehicles over art films because the characters are easier to like and the ideas easier to be relatable to. It has nothing to do with successful art.

No, as I have said above, it has everything to do with art: preferring Vertigo to Persona comes from innumerable artistic judgements based on the two films' worths. I do happen also to believe that enjoying a work of art is very important too, but that's another story.

I've always had problems with the academic studies of Hitchcock anyways. More books are written about the cultural phenomenon of Alfred Hitchcock than about his supposed art.

There is plenty written on Hitchcock's "supposed art". Robin Wood's Hitchcock's Films (or Hitchcock's Films Revisited) is a good place to start, if you haven't already read and dismissed it.

But telling a personal story by adjusting genres is limiting. You can't emphasize different moods or feelings by just finding the appropriate genre. It only captures the surface of the experience at best. It also feels like it would be a simple game of ticktacktoe to match an experience with the appropriate genre instead. The element of creation would be gone.

No, it doesn't have to be like this at all (though, as I already said, I acknowledge that there are instances of this). Some random films that mix different genres to profound effect would include Psycho (social drama, crime thriller, horror), The Philadelphia Story (romantic comedy, romantic melodrama), Taxi Driver (western, social realism, political thriller, romance, horror), The Apartment (corporate satire, dark comedy, farce, romantic comedy, tragic melodrama), Buffalo 66 (indie drama, family comedy, musical, romantic comedy), 2001 (science fiction, horror, art film), Magnolia (family melodrama, romantic comedy, thriller, musical, satire, biblical epic).

I really don't expect to convince you of my opinion – it's clear that we have very different ways of watching films, but I at least wanted to make my case a bit more.

[SoNowThen]

I think it is general wrong-headedness to make theory and directness "fight". People think that because Cassavetes' cinema was so all over the place that he was a freewheeler, but in fact as Carney has proven his films were carefully scripted with most of that "real" sounding dialogue. The Dardenne Bros are the kings of directness, but it is also BLINDINGLY obvious that they operate as orchestrators of a PERFECTLY thought-out theoretical approach to what cinema is ultimately capable of. As someone mistakingly called, in a previous post on this subject, the visible presence of the Dardennes "manipulating" an "art film" is actually just perfect and admirable control of a work of art. Knowing there is a director pulling the strings does not make for bad art -- it is not "manipulative". Manipulative is commercial films that propose the same cliched fucking responses to the same bullshit situations over and over as if they actually WERE real (and they enter the accepted public perception of actually being real)... and each time dressed up with a different colored car or the newest star/starlet of the hour.

And my comments about genre were obviously not clear. I didn't mean genre mixing. I meant that I see most commercial movies that are not "event" based (which, yes, could be a genre if you really wanna write about it that way) as being solely funded and programmed based on their perfect fit into a sellable genre -- horror is the current moneymaker... but what I really mean is that I can see companies continuing to pump out action films, horror films, romcoms that fulfill the EXACT braindead fucking expectations that your average person who just worked a long day needs to shut off their brain for the night. And I can't just attack Hollywood over this, as each major country pumps out tons of shit films along these lines every year. And we, faced with the utter barren field of personal, idiosyncratic art that is allowed to transcend rules and boundaries... we must console ourselves by praising the current young director who does especially cool tracking shots and cuts, or sneaks (laughably) "subversive" philosophical snippets into an otherwise paint-by-numbers affair. As Bill Hicks would say, "FUCK THAT".

Where is the new Antonioni... the hippest (somehow) director in Italy, willing to brainfuck his public with the excruciating numbness and tabula rasa of L'Eclisse? And Persona? As if Bergman didn't do enough already in world cinema, he gives us this shrapnel bomb of wonderment. In fact, he got even darker and grittier with the Faro trilogy that followed. And because he didn't couch it in genre confines and Hollywood brush strokes you wanna say it somehow LOSES over Vertigo? Fuck that, again. I don't mean fuck that as in I want all genre-type and Hollywood type movies gone, I mean fuck that that there is some kind of invisible floating "rule" that states that the hiding and gliding over is somehow "better", or further evidence of some kind of artistry. Godard's cinema, as radical and alienating as it was, allowed room for the Sam Fullers or the Minelli musicals of the world, but commercial cinema in its turn wants to shoot Godard down dead. It's a cannabalistic form of media; it wants to kill and destroy everything that is not easily distilled or programmable.

My friend worked for a few years for NuImage, one of the biggest "indie" studios operating right now. All the money for their hack-ass shit comes from pre-sales from other countries. Places like Japan or Germany have markets that will sell based on how many screen minutes of gunfight scenes you guarantee, or how much nudity will be in the film. Paint by numbers, paint by numbers. They attack festivals and industry markets with fancy posters. Avi Whateverthefuckhisnameis who runs NuImage said in a Variety Interview, and I quote, "reading scripts takes effort... I just want to look at the poster".

Good Holy Lord In Heaven.

I had the horrible luck to attend a script pitch seminar in Brighton Beach last year with some former international execs of major motion picture studios. They were up front about what commercial types were looking for in a pitch, so no use getting mad about that -- in fact it was down to earth and direct. The truly frightening thing is when the afternoon mini sessions came into play, and the head of one of the biggest South England funding sources for indie cinema gave a talk, and she went on about "My Summer Of Love" and how she was in on a learning session that revolved around the distribution rights being purchased for that film. I could care less about that movie, but she seemed to love it, going on and on about it. She said that when the panel discussion came to her with the question of how much she would pay to buy the distribution rights, she gave some kind of reply, 6 figures of some sort, "even though it is an art film we could market it correctly, it's beautifully done... plus the lesbian thing...". No, the leader of the seminar laughed at her: "I got that film and I paid NOTHING for it. The director knew he was dead in the water so I took it off his hands for nothing because he wanted to get it shown." Then she told us how he cut a new trailer, which made the movie look like a sexed-up exploitation film complete with INCEST of all things, dumped it out into the public to make some cash for himself, and on and on. Funny thing was, at the end of her story she was talking like the filmmaker should have been thankful to this distributor, and "isn't it funny" that you could get away with not paying someone and falsly advertising their life's work as something it is not... as if it was cool and neat and there was not a thing at all wrong with the picture. No, she was just happy to have learnt the inside trick to being a good studio exec.

I guess if we go down to the market to sell our wares we shouldn't be so surprised when someone treats us like a whore. But still... this whole thing about art winning, I dunno. I look around and I don't see art winning. The fame of an artist, or the idea of a famous artist, is still "cool", and will always be given media lip service, but that certainly doesn't assist in the creation of works of art.

Still in circles; no way out.

I like your assessment of jazz/folk amongst Havard students, GT. That's kind of where I was going with my jazz analogy.

** Sorry, I have a shitty bad habit of posting before I read everything. GT, I can agree wholeheartedly with your response to the Persona/Vertigo thing. However, as to not getting The White Stripes because you can drum as good as Meg... what the hell is up with that? The idea of taking three basics (colors, themes, instruments) and endlessly manipulating (I mean this is the best sense of the word) them to produce creative, enjoyable, and meaningful songs... fuck, that's about the best thing there is. THAT is democratization of a process. Or is it democrization? Does this word even exist? Anyway, you know what I mean. Most of the folk/blues performers who form the legacy that Jack White is carrying on were not all complete masters of their instruments (with notable exceptions... and of course, Jack himself is no slouch on the guitar). In fact, as good a trumpet player as Miles Davis was, people still talk about him not having the greatest technique, or not always playing the most accomplished solos, or whatever. Fact is, he was the hungriest, and the most driven to explore, and that is what keeps these art forms alive. The day we limit "goodness" to using the most expensive camera lenses, or being able to do a perfect accent for the nationality of whatever character you are playing... then we've killed the democracy of the thing. And anyway, I'm not so sure how democratic art is supposed to be, to begin with. I don't think anyone here is saying we hate the idea of genre. And I hope no one wants to destroy digital technology. Myself, I am simply bemoaning the fact that, upon comparing L'Enfant to everything else that was shown last year, it seems that the Dardennes are the last of a dying breed. It just fucking feels like it when you watch their movies -- they are on such a different level, they are not striving to prove something, or to fatten their wallets, or whatever whatever whatever, they are simply Masters of their craft and have yet again delivered another enduring gem to the world... and that gem was happily supported, at least in a minimal way. And the question I am asking, is that, in ten years, A. Will someone even make a work of art this stunning on film to be projected in a theater?, and B. Will a cinematic work of art such as this be accepted or embraced publicly in any way in 2017? I mean a serious and thought-provoking work dedicated to the examination of human truth, unfettered by petty small-interest-group undertones???